Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 861 | control, N = 431 | treatment, N = 431 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 86 | 50.40 ± 13.00 (25 - 74) | 50.29 ± 13.29 (25 - 74) | 50.51 ± 12.87 (28 - 73) | 0.936 |
gender | 86 | 0.476 | |||
f | 61 (71%) | 29 (67%) | 32 (74%) | ||
m | 25 (29%) | 14 (33%) | 11 (26%) | ||
occupation | 86 | 0.902 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (4.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 10 (12%) | 5 (12%) | 5 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (7.0%) | 3 (7.0%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
other | 2 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.7%) | ||
part_time | 15 (17%) | 7 (16%) | 8 (19%) | ||
retired | 21 (24%) | 10 (23%) | 11 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (4.7%) | 2 (4.7%) | 2 (4.7%) | ||
student | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.3%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
unemploy | 23 (27%) | 13 (30%) | 10 (23%) | ||
marital | 86 | 0.686 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
divore | 10 (12%) | 7 (16%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
in_relationship | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
married | 22 (26%) | 10 (23%) | 12 (28%) | ||
none | 46 (53%) | 22 (51%) | 24 (56%) | ||
seperation | 3 (3.5%) | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
widow | 3 (3.5%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (4.7%) | ||
edu | 86 | 0.789 | |||
bachelor | 25 (29%) | 9 (21%) | 16 (37%) | ||
diploma | 18 (21%) | 11 (26%) | 7 (16%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (3.5%) | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
postgraduate | 7 (8.1%) | 4 (9.3%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
primary | 5 (5.8%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 10 (12%) | 6 (14%) | 4 (9.3%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 16 (19%) | 8 (19%) | 8 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.3%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
fam_income | 86 | 0.890 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (4.7%) | 1 (2.3%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
12001_14000 | 5 (5.8%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (5.8%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
16001_18000 | 3 (3.5%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (4.7%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
20001_above | 14 (16%) | 7 (16%) | 7 (16%) | ||
2001_4000 | 13 (15%) | 9 (21%) | 4 (9.3%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (12%) | 4 (9.3%) | 6 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 9 (10%) | 5 (12%) | 4 (9.3%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (8.1%) | 3 (7.0%) | 4 (9.3%) | ||
below_2000 | 12 (14%) | 6 (14%) | 6 (14%) | ||
medication | 86 | 76 (88%) | 39 (91%) | 37 (86%) | 0.501 |
onset_duration | 86 | 15.31 ± 10.90 (0 - 56) | 16.65 ± 12.05 (1 - 56) | 13.97 ± 9.56 (0 - 35) | 0.255 |
onset_age | 86 | 35.09 ± 14.00 (14 - 64) | 33.63 ± 12.83 (14 - 58) | 36.55 ± 15.09 (15 - 64) | 0.337 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 861 | control, N = 431 | treatment, N = 431 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 86 | 3.07 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.09 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.05 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 0.858 |
recovery_stage_b | 86 | 18.03 ± 2.64 (9 - 23) | 17.86 ± 2.77 (9 - 23) | 18.21 ± 2.53 (13 - 23) | 0.543 |
ras_confidence | 86 | 30.17 ± 4.73 (19 - 43) | 29.63 ± 4.29 (19 - 40) | 30.72 ± 5.12 (20 - 43) | 0.286 |
ras_willingness | 86 | 12.23 ± 1.94 (7 - 15) | 12.07 ± 1.87 (9 - 15) | 12.40 ± 2.01 (7 - 15) | 0.439 |
ras_goal | 86 | 17.63 ± 2.86 (12 - 24) | 17.49 ± 2.81 (12 - 24) | 17.77 ± 2.93 (12 - 24) | 0.653 |
ras_reliance | 86 | 13.09 ± 2.80 (8 - 20) | 12.98 ± 2.61 (8 - 18) | 13.21 ± 3.00 (8 - 20) | 0.702 |
ras_domination | 86 | 9.93 ± 2.33 (3 - 15) | 10.42 ± 2.27 (3 - 15) | 9.44 ± 2.30 (3 - 14) | 0.051 |
symptom | 86 | 30.36 ± 9.77 (14 - 56) | 31.95 ± 9.92 (14 - 55) | 28.77 ± 9.47 (15 - 56) | 0.131 |
slof_work | 86 | 22.85 ± 4.85 (10 - 30) | 22.53 ± 4.46 (13 - 30) | 23.16 ± 5.25 (10 - 30) | 0.552 |
slof_relationship | 86 | 25.85 ± 5.89 (11 - 35) | 25.12 ± 5.96 (13 - 35) | 26.58 ± 5.80 (11 - 35) | 0.251 |
satisfaction | 86 | 20.60 ± 6.70 (5 - 32) | 18.86 ± 6.49 (5 - 29) | 22.35 ± 6.53 (5 - 32) | 0.015 |
mhc_emotional | 86 | 11.20 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 10.67 ± 3.47 (3 - 17) | 11.72 ± 3.98 (4 - 18) | 0.197 |
mhc_social | 86 | 15.06 ± 5.24 (6 - 30) | 15.14 ± 5.25 (7 - 30) | 14.98 ± 5.28 (6 - 26) | 0.886 |
mhc_psychological | 86 | 22.15 ± 5.86 (6 - 36) | 21.56 ± 5.43 (10 - 36) | 22.74 ± 6.26 (6 - 36) | 0.351 |
resilisnce | 86 | 16.65 ± 4.47 (6 - 27) | 16.28 ± 4.16 (6 - 24) | 17.02 ± 4.78 (7 - 27) | 0.444 |
social_provision | 86 | 13.72 ± 2.84 (5 - 20) | 13.26 ± 2.35 (8 - 20) | 14.19 ± 3.22 (5 - 20) | 0.130 |
els_value_living | 86 | 17.15 ± 2.90 (5 - 25) | 16.51 ± 2.36 (12 - 22) | 17.79 ± 3.26 (5 - 25) | 0.040 |
els_life_fulfill | 86 | 12.66 ± 3.27 (4 - 20) | 11.53 ± 3.05 (5 - 17) | 13.79 ± 3.12 (4 - 20) | 0.001 |
els | 86 | 29.81 ± 5.58 (9 - 45) | 28.05 ± 4.59 (18 - 36) | 31.58 ± 5.96 (9 - 45) | 0.003 |
social_connect | 86 | 26.87 ± 9.17 (8 - 48) | 27.84 ± 8.23 (8 - 45) | 25.91 ± 10.02 (8 - 48) | 0.332 |
shs_agency | 86 | 14.62 ± 4.76 (3 - 24) | 13.74 ± 4.32 (3 - 21) | 15.49 ± 5.06 (3 - 24) | 0.089 |
shs_pathway | 86 | 16.58 ± 3.88 (4 - 24) | 16.02 ± 3.71 (8 - 24) | 17.14 ± 4.01 (4 - 23) | 0.184 |
shs | 86 | 31.20 ± 8.17 (7 - 47) | 29.77 ± 7.66 (13 - 45) | 32.63 ± 8.51 (7 - 47) | 0.105 |
esteem | 86 | 12.69 ± 1.52 (10 - 18) | 12.93 ± 1.58 (10 - 18) | 12.44 ± 1.44 (10 - 16) | 0.137 |
mlq_search | 86 | 15.02 ± 3.23 (3 - 21) | 14.86 ± 3.07 (6 - 21) | 15.19 ± 3.42 (3 - 21) | 0.643 |
mlq_presence | 86 | 13.57 ± 4.09 (3 - 21) | 13.33 ± 3.68 (5 - 21) | 13.81 ± 4.49 (3 - 21) | 0.583 |
mlq | 86 | 28.59 ± 6.51 (6 - 42) | 28.19 ± 5.86 (12 - 40) | 29.00 ± 7.14 (6 - 42) | 0.565 |
empower | 86 | 19.44 ± 4.03 (6 - 28) | 18.95 ± 3.48 (11 - 24) | 19.93 ± 4.51 (6 - 28) | 0.264 |
ismi_resistance | 86 | 14.78 ± 2.59 (5 - 20) | 14.42 ± 2.17 (11 - 19) | 15.14 ± 2.93 (5 - 20) | 0.199 |
ismi_discrimation | 86 | 11.44 ± 3.13 (5 - 19) | 12.42 ± 2.85 (5 - 19) | 10.47 ± 3.12 (5 - 19) | 0.003 |
sss_affective | 86 | 10.03 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 10.56 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 9.51 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.194 |
sss_behavior | 86 | 9.67 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 4.07 (3 - 18) | 8.95 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 0.091 |
sss_cognitive | 86 | 8.26 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 8.65 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 7.86 ± 3.56 (3 - 18) | 0.333 |
sss | 86 | 27.97 ± 10.62 (9 - 54) | 29.60 ± 10.50 (9 - 54) | 26.33 ± 10.60 (9 - 54) | 0.153 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.09 | 0.181 | 2.74, 3.45 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.047 | 0.255 | -0.547, 0.454 | 0.856 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.223 | 0.273 | -0.312, 0.758 | 0.416 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.250 | 0.383 | -0.500, 1.00 | 0.515 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.419 | 17.0, 18.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.349 | 0.593 | -0.813, 1.51 | 0.557 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.252 | 0.594 | -1.41, 0.912 | 0.673 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.873 | 0.832 | -0.757, 2.50 | 0.298 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.755 | 28.1, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 1.067 | -0.999, 3.18 | 0.308 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.351 | 0.825 | -1.27, 1.97 | 0.672 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.12 | 1.155 | -1.14, 3.38 | 0.337 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.302 | 11.5, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.326 | 0.428 | -0.513, 1.16 | 0.448 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.690 | 0.306 | -1.29, -0.091 | 0.028 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.776 | 0.428 | -0.063, 1.62 | 0.076 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.463 | 16.6, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.279 | 0.654 | -1.00, 1.56 | 0.671 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.944 | 0.534 | -1.99, 0.103 | 0.083 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.83 | 0.748 | 0.363, 3.30 | 0.018 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.418 | 12.2, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.233 | 0.591 | -0.927, 1.39 | 0.695 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.461 | 0.425 | -0.372, 1.29 | 0.283 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.870 | 0.595 | -0.296, 2.04 | 0.149 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.346 | 9.74, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.977 | 0.490 | -1.94, -0.017 | 0.049 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.542 | 0.460 | -1.44, 0.359 | 0.244 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.67 | 0.644 | 0.408, 2.93 | 0.012 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 32.0 | 1.485 | 29.0, 34.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.19 | 2.100 | -7.30, 0.929 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.243 | 1.202 | -2.11, 2.60 | 0.841 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.78 | 1.682 | -5.08, 1.51 | 0.294 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.745 | 21.1, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.628 | 1.054 | -1.44, 2.69 | 0.553 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.793 | 0.635 | -2.04, 0.453 | 0.218 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.172 | 0.889 | -1.57, 1.91 | 0.847 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.1 | 0.888 | 23.4, 26.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.47 | 1.256 | -0.997, 3.93 | 0.246 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.04 | 0.887 | -2.78, 0.694 | 0.245 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.27 | 1.241 | -1.16, 3.70 | 0.310 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 1.036 | 16.8, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.49 | 1.464 | 0.618, 6.36 | 0.019 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.896 | 1.235 | -1.52, 3.32 | 0.471 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.244 | 1.729 | -3.63, 3.15 | 0.888 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.062 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.567 | 9.56, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 0.802 | -0.526, 2.62 | 0.195 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.357 | 0.547 | -0.716, 1.43 | 0.518 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.515 | 0.766 | -2.02, 0.986 | 0.505 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.838 | 13.5, 16.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.163 | 1.185 | -2.49, 2.16 | 0.891 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.10 | 0.951 | -0.758, 2.97 | 0.250 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.907 | 1.331 | -3.52, 1.70 | 0.499 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.954 | 19.7, 23.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.19 | 1.349 | -1.46, 3.83 | 0.381 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.765 | 1.029 | -1.25, 2.78 | 0.461 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.446 | 1.441 | -3.27, 2.38 | 0.758 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.673 | 15.0, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.951 | -1.12, 2.61 | 0.436 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.019 | 0.743 | -1.44, 1.48 | 0.980 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.17 | 1.040 | -0.865, 3.21 | 0.264 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.441 | 12.4, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.930 | 0.624 | -0.293, 2.15 | 0.139 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.850 | 0.540 | -1.91, 0.209 | 0.121 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.988 | 0.757 | -0.496, 2.47 | 0.197 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.055 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.5 | 0.455 | 15.6, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.28 | 0.643 | 0.018, 2.54 | 0.049 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.100 | 0.495 | -0.870, 1.07 | 0.840 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.348 | 0.693 | -1.01, 1.71 | 0.618 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.055 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.5 | 0.465 | 10.6, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.26 | 0.657 | 0.968, 3.54 | 0.001 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.970 | 0.479 | 0.031, 1.91 | 0.048 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.643 | 0.671 | -1.96, 0.672 | 0.343 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.112 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.0 | 0.833 | 26.4, 29.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.53 | 1.178 | 1.23, 5.84 | 0.003 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 0.824 | -0.593, 2.64 | 0.220 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.227 | 1.154 | -2.49, 2.03 | 0.845 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.097 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 1.422 | 25.1, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.93 | 2.011 | -5.87, 2.01 | 0.340 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.504 | 1.232 | -1.91, 2.92 | 0.684 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.86 | 1.724 | -5.24, 1.52 | 0.286 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.728 | 12.3, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.74 | 1.029 | -0.272, 3.76 | 0.093 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.280 | 0.781 | -1.25, 1.81 | 0.721 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.334 | 1.093 | -1.81, 2.48 | 0.761 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.587 | 14.9, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.12 | 0.831 | -0.512, 2.74 | 0.182 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.177 | 0.617 | -1.03, 1.39 | 0.775 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.257 | 0.864 | -1.95, 1.44 | 0.767 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.238 | 27.3, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.86 | 1.751 | -0.571, 6.29 | 0.105 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.450 | 1.284 | -2.07, 2.97 | 0.728 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.098 | 1.798 | -3.43, 3.62 | 0.957 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.215 | 12.5, 13.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.488 | 0.303 | -1.08, 0.106 | 0.110 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.035 | 0.328 | -0.607, 0.677 | 0.916 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.288 | 0.459 | -0.612, 1.19 | 0.534 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.497 | 13.9, 15.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.326 | 0.703 | -1.05, 1.70 | 0.644 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.328 | 0.601 | -1.51, 0.851 | 0.588 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.043 | 0.842 | -1.69, 1.61 | 0.959 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.624 | 12.1, 14.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.488 | 0.882 | -1.24, 2.22 | 0.581 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.006 | 0.729 | -1.43, 1.42 | 0.994 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.000 | 1.021 | -2.00, 2.00 | 1.00 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.007 | 26.2, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.814 | 1.424 | -1.98, 3.60 | 0.569 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.345 | 1.178 | -2.65, 1.96 | 0.771 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.031 | 1.650 | -3.27, 3.20 | 0.985 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.625 | 17.7, 20.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.977 | 0.883 | -0.754, 2.71 | 0.272 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.090 | 0.587 | -1.06, 1.24 | 0.879 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.451 | 0.822 | -2.06, 1.16 | 0.586 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.383 | 13.7, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.721 | 0.541 | -0.340, 1.78 | 0.186 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.077 | 0.522 | -0.947, 1.10 | 0.884 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.007 | 0.732 | -1.43, 1.44 | 0.992 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.470 | 11.5, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.95 | 0.665 | -3.26, -0.651 | 0.004 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.664 | 0.505 | -1.65, 0.327 | 0.195 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.887 | 0.708 | -0.500, 2.27 | 0.216 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.072 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.552 | 9.48, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.05 | 0.780 | -2.58, 0.483 | 0.183 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.092 | 0.539 | -0.964, 1.15 | 0.865 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.18 | 0.754 | -2.66, 0.299 | 0.124 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.580 | 9.26, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.44 | 0.821 | -3.05, 0.167 | 0.082 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.305 | 0.617 | -1.51, 0.903 | 0.622 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.457 | 0.863 | -2.15, 1.23 | 0.599 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.048 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.65 | 0.569 | 7.54, 9.77 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.791 | 0.805 | -2.37, 0.788 | 0.329 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.944 | 0.522 | -0.080, 1.97 | 0.077 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.82 | 0.731 | -3.25, -0.389 | 0.016 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.047 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.585 | 26.5, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.28 | 2.242 | -7.67, 1.11 | 0.147 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.812 | 1.421 | -1.97, 3.60 | 0.570 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.50 | 1.989 | -7.40, 0.394 | 0.084 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.053 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.74, 3.45], t(125) = 17.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.45], t(125) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.76], t(125) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.00], t(125) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.84])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.04, 18.68], t(125) = 42.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.51], t(125) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.91], t(125) = -0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.50], t(125) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.15, 31.11], t(125) = 39.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.18], t(125) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.97], t(125) = 0.43, p = 0.671; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-1.14, 3.38], t(125) = 0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.48, 12.66], t(125) = 39.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.16], t(125) = 0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.09], t(125) = -2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.62], t(125) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.81])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.58, 18.40], t(125) = 37.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.56], t(125) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.10], t(125) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.83, 95% CI [0.36, 3.30], t(125) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.12, 1.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.98 (95% CI [12.16, 13.80], t(125) = 31.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.39], t(125) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.29], t(125) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.04], t(125) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.74, 11.10], t(125) = 30.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-1.94, -0.02], t(125) = -1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.85, -7.36e-03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.36], t(125) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [0.41, 2.93], t(125) = 2.59, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.18, 1.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.95 (95% CI [29.04, 34.86], t(125) = 21.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.19, 95% CI [-7.30, 0.93], t(125) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.60], t(125) = 0.20, p = 0.840; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-5.08, 1.51], t(125) = -1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.07, 24.00], t(125) = 30.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.69], t(125) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.04, 0.45], t(125) = -1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.91], t(125) = 0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.12 (95% CI [23.38, 26.86], t(125) = 28.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.93], t(125) = 1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-2.78, 0.69], t(125) = -1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-1.16, 3.70], t(125) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [16.83, 20.89], t(125) = 18.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.49, 95% CI [0.62, 6.36], t(125) = 2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.09, 0.91])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.52, 3.32], t(125) = 0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-3.63, 3.15], t(125) = -0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.56, 11.79], t(125) = 18.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.62], t(125) = 1.30, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.43], t(125) = 0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.99], t(125) = -0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [13.50, 16.78], t(125) = 18.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.49, 2.16], t(125) = -0.14, p = 0.891; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.97], t(125) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.52, 1.70], t(125) = -0.68, p = 0.496; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.56 (95% CI [19.69, 23.43], t(125) = 22.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-1.46, 3.83], t(125) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.78], t(125) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-3.27, 2.38], t(125) = -0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.96, 17.60], t(125) = 24.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.61], t(125) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.48], t(125) = 0.03, p = 0.979; Std. beta = 4.34e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.86, 3.21], t(125) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.39, 14.12], t(125) = 30.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.15], t(125) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.21], t(125) = -1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.47], t(125) = 1.30, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.51 (95% CI [15.62, 17.40], t(125) = 36.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.02, 2.54], t(125) = 1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [5.97e-03, 0.83])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.07], t(125) = 0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.71], t(125) = 0.50, p = 0.616; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.53 (95% CI [10.62, 12.45], t(125) = 24.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.26, 95% CI [0.97, 3.54], t(125) = 3.43, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.70, 95% CI [0.30, 1.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [0.03, 1.91], t(125) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [9.57e-03, 0.59])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.67], t(125) = -0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.41, 29.68], t(125) = 33.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.53, 95% CI [1.23, 5.84], t(125) = 3.00, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.21, 1.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.64], t(125) = 1.24, p = 0.215; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-2.49, 2.03], t(125) = -0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.05, 30.62], t(125) = 19.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.93, 95% CI [-5.87, 2.01], t(125) = -0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.91, 2.92], t(125) = 0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-5.24, 1.52], t(125) = -1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.32, 15.17], t(125) = 18.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-0.27, 3.76], t(125) = 1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.81], t(125) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.81, 2.48], t(125) = 0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.87, 17.17], t(125) = 27.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.74], t(125) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.39], t(125) = 0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.95, 1.44], t(125) = -0.30, p = 0.766; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.77 (95% CI [27.34, 32.19], t(125) = 24.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.86, 95% CI [-0.57, 6.29], t(125) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-2.07, 2.97], t(125) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-3.43, 3.62], t(125) = 0.05, p = 0.956; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.51, 13.35], t(125) = 60.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.11], t(125) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.68], t(125) = 0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.19], t(125) = 0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.85])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.86 (95% CI [13.89, 15.83], t(125) = 29.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.70], t(125) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.85], t(125) = -0.55, p = 0.585; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.61], t(125) = -0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.10, 14.55], t(125) = 21.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.22], t(125) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.68e-03, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.42], t(125) = -7.79e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = -1.40e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.28e-05, 95% CI [-2.00, 2.00], t(125) = -7.13e-05, p > .999; Std. beta = -1.80e-05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.19 (95% CI [26.21, 30.16], t(125) = 27.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.98, 3.60], t(125) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-2.65, 1.96], t(125) = -0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-3.27, 3.20], t(125) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -4.70e-03, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.95 (95% CI [17.73, 20.18], t(125) = 30.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.71], t(125) = 1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.24], t(125) = 0.15, p = 0.878; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.16], t(125) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.67, 15.17], t(125) = 37.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.78], t(125) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.10], t(125) = 0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.18e-03, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.44], t(125) = 9.80e-03, p = 0.992; Std. beta = 2.86e-03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.42 (95% CI [11.50, 13.34], t(125) = 26.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.95, 95% CI [-3.26, -0.65], t(125) = -2.94, p = 0.003; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.33], t(125) = -1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.27], t(125) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.56 (95% CI [9.48, 11.64], t(125) = 19.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.58, 0.48], t(125) = -1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.15], t(125) = 0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.30], t(125) = -1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.26, 11.53], t(125) = 17.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-3.05, 0.17], t(125) = -1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.90], t(125) = -0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.23], t(125) = -0.53, p = 0.596; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.54, 9.77], t(125) = 15.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.37, 0.79], t(125) = -0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.97], t(125) = 1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.39], t(125) = -2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.87, -0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.60 (95% CI [26.50, 32.71], t(125) = 18.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.28, 95% CI [-7.67, 1.11], t(125) = -1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.97, 3.60], t(125) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.50, 95% CI [-7.40, 0.39], t(125) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 417.787 | 426.412 | -205.893 | 411.787 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 419.949 | 437.200 | -203.974 | 407.949 | 3.838 | 3 | 0.279 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 633.424 | 642.049 | -313.712 | 627.424 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 636.749 | 654.000 | -312.374 | 624.749 | 2.675 | 3 | 0.445 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 771.603 | 780.229 | -382.802 | 765.603 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 772.114 | 789.365 | -380.057 | 760.114 | 5.489 | 3 | 0.139 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 527.129 | 535.754 | -260.564 | 521.129 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 526.341 | 543.592 | -257.171 | 514.341 | 6.787 | 3 | 0.079 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 649.867 | 658.493 | -321.934 | 643.867 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 648.279 | 665.530 | -318.140 | 636.279 | 7.588 | 3 | 0.055 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 617.369 | 625.995 | -305.685 | 611.369 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 611.615 | 628.866 | -299.808 | 599.615 | 11.754 | 3 | 0.008 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 585.007 | 593.633 | -289.504 | 579.007 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 582.567 | 599.818 | -285.283 | 570.567 | 8.441 | 3 | 0.038 |
symptom | null | 3 | 923.640 | 932.265 | -458.820 | 917.640 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 924.612 | 941.863 | -456.306 | 912.612 | 5.028 | 3 | 0.170 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 745.401 | 754.027 | -369.700 | 739.401 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 748.385 | 765.636 | -368.193 | 736.385 | 3.016 | 3 | 0.389 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 805.314 | 813.939 | -399.657 | 799.314 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 807.559 | 824.810 | -397.779 | 795.559 | 3.755 | 3 | 0.289 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 862.736 | 871.362 | -428.368 | 856.736 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 861.763 | 879.014 | -424.881 | 849.763 | 6.973 | 3 | 0.073 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 683.182 | 691.807 | -338.591 | 677.182 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 687.268 | 704.519 | -337.634 | 675.268 | 1.914 | 3 | 0.590 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 798.038 | 806.664 | -396.019 | 792.038 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 802.464 | 819.715 | -395.232 | 790.464 | 1.575 | 3 | 0.665 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 827.867 | 836.493 | -410.933 | 821.867 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 832.493 | 849.744 | -410.247 | 820.493 | 1.374 | 3 | 0.712 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 741.014 | 749.640 | -367.507 | 735.014 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 742.836 | 760.087 | -365.418 | 730.836 | 4.178 | 3 | 0.243 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 641.242 | 649.868 | -317.621 | 635.242 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 640.347 | 657.598 | -314.174 | 628.347 | 6.895 | 3 | 0.075 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 639.151 | 647.777 | -316.576 | 633.151 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 639.138 | 656.389 | -313.569 | 627.138 | 6.014 | 3 | 0.111 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 649.457 | 658.083 | -321.729 | 643.457 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 640.461 | 657.712 | -314.231 | 628.461 | 14.996 | 3 | 0.002 |
els | null | 3 | 795.720 | 804.346 | -394.860 | 789.720 | |||
els | random | 6 | 790.025 | 807.276 | -389.012 | 778.025 | 11.696 | 3 | 0.009 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 916.147 | 924.773 | -455.073 | 910.147 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 919.088 | 936.339 | -453.544 | 907.088 | 3.059 | 3 | 0.383 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 759.475 | 768.100 | -376.737 | 753.475 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 761.111 | 778.363 | -374.556 | 749.111 | 4.363 | 3 | 0.225 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 699.186 | 707.812 | -346.593 | 693.186 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 703.327 | 720.578 | -345.663 | 691.327 | 1.859 | 3 | 0.602 |
shs | null | 3 | 894.991 | 903.617 | -444.496 | 888.991 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 897.657 | 914.908 | -442.828 | 885.657 | 3.334 | 3 | 0.343 |
esteem | null | 3 | 462.917 | 471.543 | -228.459 | 456.917 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 465.638 | 482.889 | -226.819 | 453.638 | 3.279 | 3 | 0.351 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 665.444 | 674.069 | -329.722 | 659.444 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 670.503 | 687.754 | -329.251 | 658.503 | 0.941 | 3 | 0.816 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 721.834 | 730.460 | -357.917 | 715.834 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 727.478 | 744.729 | -357.739 | 715.478 | 0.356 | 3 | 0.949 |
mlq | null | 3 | 847.565 | 856.190 | -420.782 | 841.565 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 852.999 | 870.250 | -420.499 | 840.999 | 0.566 | 3 | 0.904 |
empower | null | 3 | 705.817 | 714.443 | -349.909 | 699.817 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 710.374 | 727.625 | -349.187 | 698.374 | 1.443 | 3 | 0.695 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 606.907 | 615.533 | -300.454 | 600.907 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 610.665 | 627.916 | -299.332 | 598.665 | 2.243 | 3 | 0.524 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 649.807 | 658.433 | -321.904 | 643.807 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 646.749 | 664.000 | -317.374 | 634.749 | 9.058 | 3 | 0.029 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 682.709 | 691.335 | -338.355 | 676.709 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 681.040 | 698.291 | -334.520 | 669.040 | 7.669 | 3 | 0.053 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 700.958 | 709.583 | -347.479 | 694.958 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 701.038 | 718.289 | -344.519 | 689.038 | 5.920 | 3 | 0.116 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 686.757 | 695.382 | -340.378 | 680.757 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 684.091 | 701.342 | -336.045 | 672.091 | 8.666 | 3 | 0.034 |
sss | null | 3 | 952.314 | 960.940 | -473.157 | 946.314 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 950.408 | 967.659 | -469.204 | 938.408 | 7.906 | 3 | 0.048 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 43 | 3.09 ± 1.18 | 43 | 3.05 ± 1.18 | 0.856 | 0.047 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 22 | 3.32 ± 1.17 | -0.224 | 23 | 3.52 ± 1.17 | -0.476 | 0.560 | -0.205 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 43 | 17.86 ± 2.75 | 43 | 18.21 ± 2.75 | 0.557 | -0.164 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 22 | 17.61 ± 2.66 | 0.118 | 23 | 18.83 ± 2.67 | -0.292 | 0.126 | -0.573 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 43 | 29.63 ± 4.95 | 43 | 30.72 ± 4.95 | 0.308 | -0.383 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 22 | 29.98 ± 4.39 | -0.123 | 23 | 32.19 ± 4.42 | -0.515 | 0.095 | -0.775 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 43 | 12.07 ± 1.98 | 43 | 12.40 ± 1.98 | 0.448 | -0.310 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 22 | 11.38 ± 1.72 | 0.657 | 23 | 12.48 ± 1.73 | -0.082 | 0.034 | -1.048 |
ras_goal | 1st | 43 | 17.49 ± 3.03 | 43 | 17.77 ± 3.03 | 0.671 | -0.150 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 22 | 16.54 ± 2.74 | 0.508 | 23 | 18.65 ± 2.76 | -0.476 | 0.011 | -1.134 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 43 | 12.98 ± 2.74 | 43 | 13.21 ± 2.74 | 0.695 | -0.159 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 22 | 13.44 ± 2.38 | -0.315 | 23 | 14.54 ± 2.40 | -0.911 | 0.124 | -0.755 |
ras_domination | 1st | 43 | 10.42 ± 2.27 | 43 | 9.44 ± 2.27 | 0.049 | 0.599 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 22 | 9.88 ± 2.15 | 0.332 | 23 | 10.57 ± 2.16 | -0.692 | 0.283 | -0.425 |
symptom | 1st | 43 | 31.95 ± 9.74 | 43 | 28.77 ± 9.74 | 0.133 | 0.782 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 22 | 32.20 ± 7.97 | -0.060 | 23 | 27.23 ± 8.06 | 0.378 | 0.040 | 1.220 |
slof_work | 1st | 43 | 22.53 ± 4.89 | 43 | 23.16 ± 4.89 | 0.553 | -0.291 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 22 | 21.74 ± 4.05 | 0.367 | 23 | 22.54 ± 4.09 | 0.287 | 0.511 | -0.371 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 43 | 25.12 ± 5.83 | 43 | 26.58 ± 5.83 | 0.246 | -0.481 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 22 | 24.07 ± 5.03 | 0.343 | 23 | 26.81 ± 5.07 | -0.075 | 0.072 | -0.899 |
satisfaction | 1st | 43 | 18.86 ± 6.79 | 43 | 22.35 ± 6.79 | 0.019 | -0.809 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 22 | 19.76 ± 6.20 | -0.208 | 23 | 23.00 ± 6.23 | -0.151 | 0.083 | -0.752 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 43 | 10.67 ± 3.72 | 43 | 11.72 ± 3.72 | 0.195 | -0.559 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 22 | 11.03 ± 3.18 | -0.190 | 23 | 11.56 ± 3.21 | 0.084 | 0.578 | -0.284 |
mhc_social | 1st | 43 | 15.14 ± 5.49 | 43 | 14.98 ± 5.49 | 0.891 | 0.049 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 22 | 16.24 ± 4.94 | -0.335 | 23 | 15.17 ± 4.97 | -0.060 | 0.470 | 0.324 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 43 | 21.56 ± 6.25 | 43 | 22.74 ± 6.25 | 0.381 | -0.333 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 22 | 22.32 ± 5.53 | -0.215 | 23 | 23.06 ± 5.57 | -0.089 | 0.656 | -0.208 |
resilisnce | 1st | 43 | 16.28 ± 4.41 | 43 | 17.02 ± 4.41 | 0.436 | -0.289 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 22 | 16.30 ± 3.93 | -0.007 | 23 | 18.22 ± 3.95 | -0.464 | 0.105 | -0.745 |
social_provision | 1st | 43 | 13.26 ± 2.89 | 43 | 14.19 ± 2.89 | 0.139 | -0.491 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 22 | 12.41 ± 2.67 | 0.449 | 23 | 14.32 ± 2.68 | -0.073 | 0.018 | -1.012 |
els_value_living | 1st | 43 | 16.51 ± 2.98 | 43 | 17.79 ± 2.98 | 0.049 | -0.747 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 22 | 16.61 ± 2.64 | -0.059 | 23 | 18.24 ± 2.66 | -0.262 | 0.042 | -0.950 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 43 | 11.53 ± 3.05 | 43 | 13.79 ± 3.05 | 0.001 | -1.368 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 22 | 12.50 ± 2.66 | -0.588 | 23 | 14.12 ± 2.68 | -0.199 | 0.045 | -0.978 |
els | 1st | 43 | 28.05 ± 5.46 | 43 | 31.58 ± 5.46 | 0.003 | -1.250 | ||
els | 2nd | 22 | 29.07 ± 4.71 | -0.362 | 23 | 32.38 ± 4.75 | -0.281 | 0.020 | -1.169 |
social_connect | 1st | 43 | 27.84 ± 9.32 | 43 | 25.91 ± 9.32 | 0.340 | 0.461 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 22 | 28.34 ± 7.75 | -0.120 | 23 | 24.55 ± 7.84 | 0.324 | 0.105 | 0.904 |
shs_agency | 1st | 43 | 13.74 ± 4.77 | 43 | 15.49 ± 4.77 | 0.093 | -0.647 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 22 | 14.02 ± 4.21 | -0.104 | 23 | 16.10 ± 4.24 | -0.228 | 0.102 | -0.771 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 43 | 16.02 ± 3.85 | 43 | 17.14 ± 3.85 | 0.182 | -0.524 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 22 | 16.20 ± 3.38 | -0.083 | 23 | 17.06 ± 3.40 | 0.038 | 0.397 | -0.404 |
shs | 1st | 43 | 29.77 ± 8.12 | 43 | 32.63 ± 8.12 | 0.105 | -0.647 | ||
shs | 2nd | 22 | 30.22 ± 7.09 | -0.102 | 23 | 33.18 ± 7.15 | -0.124 | 0.166 | -0.669 |
esteem | 1st | 43 | 12.93 ± 1.41 | 43 | 12.44 ± 1.41 | 0.110 | 0.408 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 22 | 12.97 ± 1.39 | -0.029 | 23 | 12.77 ± 1.39 | -0.270 | 0.631 | 0.167 |
mlq_search | 1st | 43 | 14.86 ± 3.26 | 43 | 15.19 ± 3.26 | 0.644 | -0.155 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 22 | 14.53 ± 2.99 | 0.156 | 23 | 14.82 ± 3.00 | 0.176 | 0.753 | -0.134 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 43 | 13.33 ± 4.09 | 43 | 13.81 ± 4.09 | 0.581 | -0.192 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 22 | 13.32 ± 3.71 | 0.002 | 23 | 13.81 ± 3.73 | 0.002 | 0.661 | -0.192 |
mlq | 1st | 43 | 28.19 ± 6.60 | 43 | 29.00 ± 6.60 | 0.569 | -0.198 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 22 | 27.84 ± 5.99 | 0.084 | 23 | 28.62 ± 6.03 | 0.092 | 0.663 | -0.191 |
empower | 1st | 43 | 18.95 ± 4.10 | 43 | 19.93 ± 4.10 | 0.272 | -0.486 | ||
empower | 2nd | 22 | 19.04 ± 3.48 | -0.045 | 23 | 19.57 ± 3.51 | 0.180 | 0.615 | -0.262 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 43 | 14.42 ± 2.51 | 43 | 15.14 ± 2.51 | 0.186 | -0.387 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 22 | 14.50 ± 2.40 | -0.041 | 23 | 15.22 ± 2.41 | -0.045 | 0.312 | -0.391 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 43 | 12.42 ± 3.08 | 43 | 10.47 ± 3.08 | 0.004 | 1.119 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 22 | 11.76 ± 2.72 | 0.380 | 23 | 10.69 ± 2.74 | -0.128 | 0.193 | 0.611 |
sss_affective | 1st | 43 | 10.56 ± 3.62 | 43 | 9.51 ± 3.62 | 0.183 | 0.567 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 22 | 10.65 ± 3.11 | -0.050 | 23 | 8.42 ± 3.13 | 0.589 | 0.018 | 1.205 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 43 | 10.40 ± 3.81 | 43 | 8.95 ± 3.81 | 0.082 | 0.678 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 22 | 10.09 ± 3.35 | 0.144 | 23 | 8.19 ± 3.37 | 0.358 | 0.060 | 0.893 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 43 | 8.65 ± 3.73 | 43 | 7.86 ± 3.73 | 0.329 | 0.444 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 22 | 9.60 ± 3.15 | -0.530 | 23 | 6.98 ± 3.18 | 0.492 | 0.007 | 1.465 |
sss | 1st | 43 | 29.60 ± 10.40 | 43 | 26.33 ± 10.40 | 0.147 | 0.677 | ||
sss | 2nd | 22 | 30.42 ± 8.72 | -0.168 | 23 | 23.63 ± 8.81 | 0.556 | 0.011 | 1.401 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(120.17) = -0.18, p = 0.856, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.46)
2st
t(126.16) = 0.58, p = 0.560, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.89)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(115.22) = 0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.52)
2st
t(125.97) = 1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.79)
ras_confidence
1st
t(100.50) = 1.02, p = 0.308, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.21)
2st
t(127.00) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.39 to 4.81)
ras_willingness
1st
t(97.68) = 0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.17)
2st
t(126.64) = 2.14, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.12)
ras_goal
1st
t(102.89) = 0.43, p = 0.671, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.58)
2st
t(126.91) = 2.57, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (0.49 to 3.73)
ras_reliance
1st
t(97.84) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.41)
2st
t(126.68) = 1.55, p = 0.124, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.51)
ras_domination
1st
t(110.64) = -1.99, p = 0.049, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.95 to -0.01)
2st
t(126.15) = 1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.96)
symptom
1st
t(92.18) = -1.52, p = 0.133, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-7.36 to 0.98)
2st
t(121.88) = -2.08, p = 0.040, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-9.70 to -0.24)
slof_work
1st
t(93.20) = 0.60, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.72)
2st
t(123.45) = 0.66, p = 0.511, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.60 to 3.20)
slof_relationship
1st
t(97.26) = 1.17, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.03 to 3.96)
2st
t(126.51) = 1.82, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-0.24 to 5.72)
satisfaction
1st
t(104.43) = 2.38, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.58 to 6.39)
2st
t(126.76) = 1.75, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.43 to 6.91)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(96.23) = 1.30, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.64)
2st
t(126.09) = 0.56, p = 0.578, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.42)
mhc_social
1st
t(102.07) = -0.14, p = 0.891, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.51 to 2.19)
2st
t(126.96) = -0.72, p = 0.470, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.99 to 1.85)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(99.99) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.49 to 3.86)
2st
t(126.98) = 0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.54 to 4.01)
resilisnce
1st
t(100.93) = 0.78, p = 0.436, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.63)
2st
t(127.00) = 1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.41 to 4.25)
social_provision
1st
t(105.82) = 1.49, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.17)
2st
t(126.61) = 2.41, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.34 to 3.50)
els_value_living
1st
t(100.32) = 1.99, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.56)
2st
t(126.99) = 2.06, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (0.06 to 3.19)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(98.33) = 3.43, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -1.37, 95% CI (0.95 to 3.56)
2st
t(126.79) = 2.03, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.04 to 3.19)
els
1st
t(97.00) = 3.00, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (1.20 to 5.87)
2st
t(126.42) = 2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (0.52 to 6.10)
social_connect
1st
t(93.54) = -0.96, p = 0.340, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.92 to 2.06)
2st
t(123.89) = -1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-8.39 to 0.81)
shs_agency
1st
t(99.79) = 1.70, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.79)
2st
t(126.97) = 1.65, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.42 to 4.57)
shs_pathway
1st
t(99.02) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.76)
2st
t(126.90) = 0.85, p = 0.397, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.86)
shs
1st
t(98.55) = 1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.61 to 6.33)
2st
t(126.83) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.24 to 7.16)
esteem
1st
t(120.90) = -1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.11)
2st
t(126.22) = -0.48, p = 0.631, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.62)
mlq_search
1st
t(105.20) = 0.46, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.72)
2st
t(126.68) = 0.32, p = 0.753, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.05)
mlq_presence
1st
t(103.42) = 0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.24)
2st
t(126.86) = 0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.68)
mlq
1st
t(103.51) = 0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.64)
2st
t(126.85) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.76 to 4.33)
empower
1st
t(95.54) = 1.11, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.73)
2st
t(125.69) = 0.50, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.59)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(112.54) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.79)
2st
t(126.04) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.15)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(99.86) = -2.94, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.12, 95% CI (-3.27 to -0.63)
2st
t(126.98) = -1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.55)
sss_affective
1st
t(96.60) = -1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.60 to 0.50)
2st
t(126.26) = -2.39, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.21, 95% CI (-4.07 to -0.39)
sss_behavior
1st
t(99.40) = -1.76, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-3.07 to 0.19)
2st
t(126.94) = -1.90, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 0.89, 95% CI (-3.88 to 0.08)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(94.88) = -0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-2.39 to 0.81)
2st
t(125.22) = -2.77, p = 0.007, Cohen d = 1.47, 95% CI (-4.48 to -0.74)
sss
1st
t(94.32) = -1.46, p = 0.147, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-7.73 to 1.17)
2st
t(124.72) = -2.60, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 1.40, 95% CI (-11.95 to -1.61)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(63.02) = 1.75, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.01)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(59.33) = 1.06, p = 0.588, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.80)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(50.93) = 1.81, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.16 to 3.10)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(49.51) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.69)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(52.15) = 1.68, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.94)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(49.59) = 3.18, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.49 to 2.17)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(56.44) = 2.48, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.04)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(46.84) = -1.31, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.91 to 0.83)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(47.33) = -0.99, p = 0.650, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.88 to 0.63)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(49.31) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.98)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(52.97) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.79 to 3.09)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(48.80) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.92)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(51.73) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.68 to 2.08)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(50.67) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.35)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(51.15) = 1.63, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.66)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(53.71) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.21)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(50.83) = 0.92, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.43)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(49.84) = 0.69, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.27)
els
1st vs 2st
t(49.18) = 0.98, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.42)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(47.50) = -1.12, p = 0.536, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.79 to 1.08)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(50.57) = 0.80, p = 0.856, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.16)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(50.18) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.14)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(49.94) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.99 to 3.09)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(63.66) = 1.00, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.97)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(53.38) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.82)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(52.43) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.45 to 1.44)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(52.48) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.71 to 1.95)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(48.46) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.80)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(57.59) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.12)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(50.60) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.22)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(48.98) = -2.05, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.15 to -0.02)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(50.37) = -1.26, p = 0.429, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.46)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(48.14) = -1.71, p = 0.188, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.15)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(47.87) = -1.93, p = 0.119, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.50 to 0.11)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(64.19) = 0.81, p = 0.840, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.77)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(60.27) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.94)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(51.36) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.01)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(49.87) = -2.25, p = 0.058, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-1.31 to -0.07)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(52.66) = -1.76, p = 0.169, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.02 to 0.13)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(49.95) = 1.08, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.32)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(57.21) = -1.17, p = 0.493, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.38)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(47.05) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.67)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(47.56) = -1.24, p = 0.439, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.07 to 0.49)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(49.65) = -1.17, p = 0.493, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.83 to 0.74)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(53.52) = 0.72, p = 0.948, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.39)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(49.11) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.46)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(52.21) = 1.16, p = 0.506, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.81 to 3.02)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(51.09) = 0.74, p = 0.926, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.84)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(51.59) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.52)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(54.31) = -1.56, p = 0.248, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.24)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(51.26) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.10)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(50.21) = 2.02, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.94)
els
1st vs 2st
t(49.51) = 1.24, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.69)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(47.73) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.99)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(50.98) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.86)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(50.57) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.42)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(50.32) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.14 to 3.04)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(64.87) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.69)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(53.96) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.88)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(52.96) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.46)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(53.01) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.72 to 2.03)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(48.75) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.28)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(58.43) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.13)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(51.02) = -1.31, p = 0.394, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.68 to 0.36)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(49.30) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.18)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(50.77) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.94)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(48.42) = 1.80, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.00)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(48.13) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.68)
Plot
